tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN July 26, 2013 8:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> next, a discussion on the obama administration's economic policies and their effect on certain sectors of the u.s. economy. from this morning's washington journal, this is an hour and a half. >> one of our guests. also joined by heidi, an economist at the economic policy institute, or epi, and joining us from george mason university where she is a senior research fellow. wanted to get your perspective on the economic -- president obama at a florida port vowed to speed shipping and transit projects, talking how the thinks he can boost the economy. what is the state of the economy now? how would you judge the economy
to date? >> i think it's too weak. we've been out of the recession for four years. i think the best way to describe it is the labor market is stuck in the mud. the unemployment rate, which is a share of the population that is employed, has been almost flat, and very low. as unemployment has gone down, that's a -- because a lot of people have given up and economic growth is not as strong as it should be to fix all these long-term unemployed people back to work. so it's really disconcerting. >> what is your take on the health of the economy? >> i completely agree. what we saw -- you look over the last six years, during the great recession, our labor market fell of cliff, and since that time, since the recovery began, we have basically just been
bumping along at the bottom of that hole. we haven't really started climbing out of it. and the unemployment rate itself actually has improved. right now the unemployment rate is 7.6%. that sounds like a big improvement from the peak of 10% in the fall of 2009 but the thing is that most of that improvement was due to people either dropping out of or never entering the laborers to because of weak job opportunities. so when you look at broader measures of job opportunities, you see they just really haven't improved much since the recovery began. they're not deteriorating north getting worse, but we're just not getting out of the hole very fast. >> talking about in the economic record of the obama administration. if you would like to join the conversation, democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. and independent callers,
2-2-585-3882. >> heidi, point to items and things done to impact the economy? either good or bad. >> it's a good question. the thing i think is useful is to think about whether something was the right thing to do, was to diagnosis what is wrong with the economy, and when you look at the data, when you look at what is going on in the economy, the thing that is the problem is a lack of demand. businesses -- we all know that businesses are sitting on a lot of cash right now. i don't think they're greedy business people, not wanting to hire. they're actually smart business people who will hire when they see the demand for their goods and services pick up in a way they can hire people. they're not hiring because they don't have demand for their stuff. at the degree where they need to put that back online, get more people on the floor. so that's the problem, a lack of demand. so what we need to do in our
economy to boost the recovery to dig us out of the hole, is to boost demand. so a monetary policy is the fed reducing interest rates to stimulate demand. that creates -- that been defanged because the interest raise are around zero. the other tool is fiscal policy. that stimulus. so congress actually did that. it was a great job in early 2009, the problem is it was too small, it got spent out too soon, it was around $800 billion package, never enough going up against the bursting of the $7 trillion housing bubble. it made a big difference, but never enough to really get us into a robust recovery. >> what has been done by the administration and has or hasn't
worked? >> i have slightly different understanding of what is going on. i do think that, yes, firms are sitting on a lot of cash and consumers are being very tim met, -- timid, and it's not surprising considering the immense amount of wealth destroyed during the recession. but i see a lot of the community, a lot of the unwillingness to act right now more as fear, and uncertainty, and a lot of it comes from a lot of government intervention which people don't know what is going to happen to them. i think there's a clear understanding that we have a big problem with debt and deficit, even though it has slightly improved. but people understand that it probably means a lot of higher tasks -- taxes in the future. a lot of big rules have been
passed. many of them have not been written yet, and people wonder what it means, so they don't know how it's going to affect their businesses. so there's just a lot of uncertainty in the economy, a lot triggered by the government intervention. all done for good intentions for the most part. as for what we need to do, i actually think -- heidi says what the government can do, and monetary policy and fiscal policy. you're right about monetary policy, even though i guess there's some debate about the fact the fed could actually do better and more in targeting gdp. but fiscal policy is also made very weak in its ability to do anything. it's been tried, and it's been tried -- the obama administration has made a lot of promises about what they can
bring and didn't deliver on these promises, and more importantly, even though believe in the ability of fiscal policy to boost the economy, one of the things is that it's only effective in the short run, and we have been doing there is for five years. when is this over? i think policies, what you need to do is actually try to give the free market chance, try to streamline regulations so people can start hiring and people can start relaxing about the economy. >> get more from the panelists. let's listen to president obama yesterday in jacksonville, giving his own reflection on where we were five years ago and where we are now. >> the good news is that after nearly five years since the financial crisis happened, thanks to the hard work and resilience of the american people, america has fought back. so together we saved an auto
industry, and i was told that the -- other places where we're sending out more american cars than ever before all around the world. [applause] >> we took on a broken healthcare system. we invested in new american technology to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. we doubled our production of clean energy. put in place tough new rules on the big banks and credit card companies and mortgage insurers so make sheer sure we didn't have the same financial shenanigans that we did before. changed the tax code a that was skewed in favor of the wealthy and make sure it does more for working and middle class companies and locked in tax cuts for 98% of americans and then we asked folks at the top to pay a little bit more. so you add all this up, and over
the last 40 months, our businesses have created 7.2 million new jobs. [applause] and this year we're off to our strongest private sector job growth since 1999. strongest job growth in -- over a decade. >> we just heard from the president and also heard from our other panelists, one perspective on what the government could do now. what is your response? >> is employment being held back because of business concern over regulations or uncertainty over what policies are going to be put in place? we have way to test that. if that were true, and if businesses had demand for their goods and services but didn't
want to hire because of uncertainty about future policy, they would be ramping up the hours of the workers they have. they would be increasing the hours of the workes on staff. they don't want to here more people but but can increase hou. but we haven't seen that. the helping of the average work week is no higher than before the recession. so very difficult to find the evidence that businesses are holing back because of uncertainty or regulation. it really comes down to they just don't have demand for their stuff, that means they're going to need to hire more people. so that's where the issue is. that's where we should be focusing our energy. >> let's hear from our callers. nate, kansas city, missouri, democrat. >> caller: how you doing? i'm tired of hearing about president obama. because really what has gone on
that i see -- and i do a lot of studying -- is that basically taking away government jobs and even a lot of factory worker jobs and privatizing so much government jobs. just like the florida. florida, come august 1st, all the medical people for the prisons are going to be laid off. they can go put application in for the private contractors but they can't guarantee them a job and if they do get a jobbing, they get lower pay and they get also no pension. but the whole idea of what dish challenge c-span, you need to do a segment on -- forget about the president. what a lot of the republicans -- not just republican but mostly republican governors, what they're dag right now is rung under the radar as far as crag so much of the government out, and what this -- so how do --
what that does, that makes a lot of people that's working today, won't be working tomorrow therapy. privatizing most of the prinze now, and a lot -- prisons now and they're using the inmates to run the prison because they don't want to pay the personnel to run the prisons properly. so what is happening is we're being undermined. this talk about the president is nothing compared to what the republican governors are doing. and basically privatizing good jobs people had for years -- >> thanks for your input. you talked about government jobs. here's some numbers from the treasury department. from the bureau of economic analysis and bureau of anker statistics looking at where growth i happening. the private sector is leading growth and young see there, private, nonfarm business, and then government, right here, federal, state, and local. what do you see when you look at
where development is happening? >> so, the private sector is always the true engine of growth, sustainable growth, and sustainable jobs. but i think that is a very important question and that is a point -- that's the underemployment of the people who are employed. and that's another problem we have with the labor force right now. that guess to another sign that the unemployment rate doesn't capture everything that it should capture. so, for instance, while we have people who are working now, a lot of them are working in parttime jobs. more than before. and so a lot of people actually should be working fulltime, aren't, and that is a product of some regulation and in particular, the healthcare. when you call businesses they'll say tha in order to get around
that law, whether they think the law is good or bad, instead of hiring fulltime people, the only hire parttime people, which then compounds the problem of underemployment, even for people who are in a job, and that's a real problem. >> heidi? >> there's a couple of things i'd like to responsible to nate brought up a great point about the loss of public sector jurors. we have last nearly three-quarters of a million of public sector jobs and it's a huge drag of the recovery, and when you lose a public sector job, there are biggs ripples -- big ripples into the private sector forks every public sector job lost, the affect on the private sector, there's a loss of one private sector job, or a private sector job that was not gained. so it's a huge drag on the recovery and it's a drag that wasn't weighen -- weighing on
earlier recovers. so with had the same government spending now that we had in the recovery from the 2001 recession, in other words in the recovery, that george bush was president during, if we had the same level of government spending as we had during that recovery we would likely have three million more jobs now though fact the government spending was going down, rather than up, is a huge drag on this recovery. so, it's a really good point there. the other thing he talk about was contracting out of government services. there's something the president can do on that. the president, through executive order, could just say that i -- -- federal spending right now -- the president could actually say that people who are employed by federal funds, so contractors who are employing
people, subcontracting, they have to pay a living wage. the president through executive action could actually make a lot of high-quality jobs. it could have a big impact right now the -- around two million people are paid in jobs less than $12 an hour through federal funds, through this kind of crag. so that kind of executive order could have a big impact on job quality in this country. >> our guests are heidi, an economist at the economic policy inestate, and joined by a senior research fellow at the george mason university. let's go to whenry. republican. >> caller: good morning, c-span. she said the topic had changed. we could talk all day on this one. i don't see any change.
the healthcare is turning out to be a major disaster, can -- which is dragging the economy down. my feelings are -- i'm sort of what you call a naturalist, and by the government sticking its nose into everything, trying to be big brother, whatever, they've managed to what i call natural selection, people make bad mistakes in business, they should lose. if the government feels they should bail them out. and the people in the upper part of it, they win. everybody else loses. and so that seems to be the trend. and fortunately i work for a company that the management makes good decisions. and we are surviving but we're not surviving because we have had big brother looking over our shoulder. >> let's get from comment from
heidi. >> i'm glad he brought up the health care. what we're actually seeing is that so far the evidence suggests it's not going to be implemented -- there's going to be some bumps in the road but that it's working pretty well. new york just came out showing that premiums are going to be reduced by about half when the obamacare is implemented. so the signs are that the insurance people -- people are going to be able to get, the insurance they have to get through the mandate, is actually going to be a reasonable cost. the implementation looks like it's going well. there's been some flexibility in saying, okay, the employer mandate, the idea that there's going to be sanctions against employers, certain set of employers if they don't provide health insurance, administration said there's been problems and let's put that off a year. so they're being flexible when things are looking like there
might be bumps in the road. it's not perfect but all signs point to this is actually going to be successfully implemented and is going to provide health insurance to millions of families. people who had preexisting conditions who were not able to get health insurance they could afford, will now be able to that sort of thing is going to make our country stronger, going to be better for the people of the country, and looks like it's working. >> i find it interesting that you should bring up new york, because it is true that the study came out and showed an improvement because new york's healthcare market was one of the most ridge edof the country, and it's improving is good but it's unlike -- i guess in fact all of the signs we're getting, california is not going to be such great news, and we're getting signs 0 of a lot of the
premiums are going to increase by gigantic amounts, and i agree there's always bumps in the road in implementation but these are pretty big bumps. we have pretty big bumps. let's not forget the act which was supposed to be reducing the cost of the healthcare law had to be repealed because it was unworkable, and now the employer mandates, and it's been delayed and a lot of people whoa think it means it's going to be permanently delayed because it's unworkable, and one of the problems that the healthcare law was making was, first -- well, some of the problems, we were going to be -- cover everyone. not going to be the case. for better or worse because don't think covering everyone is actually the right direction. certainly poor people need to have access to health care and
be able to get better health outcomes, but we were told people could teen their insurance and there's a lot of signs this is not going to happen, and as premiums begin to go down for everyone, one of the promises that was made, and it is true that some people, older people and sick people, will see their premium go down. however there's absolutely no doubt that, again, younger and healthier people, again, will have their short stick. won't see the social security and will have to pay for medicare and will see their premium go up significantly. i'm not as optimistic as you are. >> we're looking at the economy and what president obama and his team at the white house have done for the economy over the last five years. the president in florida
yesterday, talked about infrastructure. the headline in the "new york times" was that he vows to speed shipping and transit projects and you can see hem touring right there in jacksonville, florida. let's hear what the president said on infrastructure development. >> there's a bipartisan bill in the senate to fund critical improvements in highway and bridges and transit and rail systems and ports like this one. so the house should act quickly on the bill. let's get more americans back on the job. doing the work america needs done. that will be good for middle class families, good for middle class security. >> talking about infrastructure. let's get to jack in laverne, california. on our democrat line. jeff, we were talking about your state of california. go ahead. >> caller: yeah. the lady that does not support obama's healthcare plan, she
probably really likes the plan before obama health care was passed, which was insurance rates were skyrocketing, they were going up without the plan. so, why is she blaming obama's plan for skyrocketing rates? it's the big business that is manipulating the rates. >> let's get a response but let's also look at what the impact of this law will be on the economy, and what it's been so far since that's the focus of our discussion. >> the law has not been implemented yet so a lot of the things are predictions about what is going to happen so when i say premiums are going to go up or new york premium going down, and these are predicts, but there's a prediction message that actual live, because of the law, and may have been going up before but now the direct impact
after implementation is that for the most part, with rare exceptions, it's going to go up quite dramatically for a segment of the population. the young and healthy people. i think, again, because one of the direct consequences that we see, we see people pro-actively responding and reacting to the mandate in the law by not hiring fulltime employees or by converting their fulltime employee into parttime employees. these are not desirable outcomes and we can all agree that we want outcomes to improve for poor people. want panel to have the truth about the kind of insurance they can get and when they can get it, and we want it to be affordable, and i believe that choice, rather than government mandate, the free market is
often better able to provide these type of services. with the exception we should take care of poor people, and there's no doubt we all agree on this. >> heidi. >> the host market is one of those cases where actually the free market isn't the best provider. and you have a case where, in order to get insurance to people who are not healthy, who have preexisting conditions, if you have a case where people are offered health insurance and -- on the private market and health insurers don't want to insure people who are unhealthy, unhealthy people, who need the insurance most, won't be able to get it. that's one of the key things with obamacare, and the younger, healthier people may see
increases in premiums but think about their whole life cycle. when they are no longer young and healthy, they will have access to health care. so they're making this downtown payment on -- down payment on being able to get good health care throughout their lives. we're doing this to set up our whole economy and the work force and the people of the done troy actual -- country to be healthier and it's very possible this will start some entrepreneurship. and right now people say i can't afford to go out on my own because i cannot afford health insurance, and i have to have it for my family. in the case where you can get health insurance in an affordable way through obamacare you might be able to go out and start that business you otherwise wouldn't have been able to do. so it's absolutely right, we don't know how this is going to play out. but i am really opt miss sting
this is the right direction for the country. >> i want to add one thing. this is the beauty of actually -- of marys -- america and entrepreneurs, we don't know what they'll come up with that may change people's lives. we don't have a free market in health care. when half of the spending is done by the government we can't say there's anything free or anything that resembles a market in health care so far. >> let's take a look at tweets coming into us. one: are baby-boomers staying in the work force instead of retiring and is that holding back employment demands? >> that's a very interesting point because -- heidi, you're a labor economist. one of the things we talk about is people giving up working. with one exception. actually two. seniors are staying longer, and you can understand.
they're seeing a lot of their wealth disappear and there's saying, i don't know -- i don't think it's holding back employment. i don't think so. we want a bigger share of the population working because that's is what sustains economic growth, that is what sustains the population, and with strong economic growth we could have seniors working longer, younger people working, and people working fulltime. so right about what is happening and it's very impressing phenomenon, but i don't see it as a problem. >> heidi? >> looking at this new phenomenon in this recovery of this huge pool of what i call missing workers, people who aren't in the labor force but who would be if job opportunities wore stronger, around four million workers strong. and you can break it down by gender, by age, and what i find
is that there are fewer missing workers who are near retirement age or retirement age, but they're still some. so, in other words, in this recovery there are actually fewer people age 55 plus working than there would be if job opportunities were stronger. so, there's a point there that more people near retirement age are hanging on to their jobs if they can because they're in the point where they're more likely to see their assets decimated, namely the value of their home by the bursting of the housing bubble. so some are staying in their jobs but the dominant factor is actually the lack of job opportunities. we still have these missing workers who are older than 55. so i don't think that is a driving factor.
>> heidi is an economist at the economic policy institute and talking with a senior research fellow at george mason university. we're looking at the state of the economy and the record of the obama administration. a tweet from peg. how much is a drag the sequestration on the economy. >> what sequestration is -- not arch knows. it was part of a deal that happened at the end of the summer last summer to avoid the debt celling. it was across the board government spending cuts. so just had -- there's not really -- it happens with a meat cleaver, not a scalpel. so sequestration is across the board government spending cuts. that is the wrong thing to be doing right now. the evidence is overwhelming that authority, which is deficit reduction, this kind -- this is
the kind of thing that sequestration is part of, during a slump actually has big negative effects. you bull that kind of spending out of the economy when no one else is spendingor, pulling the economic activity out of the economy and that costs jobs. so it is a big drag on the economy. have what seen -- we haven't seen the full effects yet but i'm expecting to see them more strongly in the next couple of months. >> i agreement it was very blunt and was targeted as -- concern about future debt, the wrong part of the budget. even though i thing everything ought to be on the table, particularly defense spending. but future debt comes from the into side of the budget that remains untouched and that's the explosion of programs like
social security. but we -- there's been a lot of threats -- we were told that the sky was going to fall, and "washington post" did a story of looking at the 46 myth wes have heard, automatic actually materialized, and only 11 and one of the things that is interesting this week to talk about when we talk about sequestration -- which is a very small opt -- amount of money which mostly affected the growth of spending. it's kind of -- don't really know how it's going to play out because government agencies have the ability to -- we have heard that it was going to be devastating for defense contractors, and they were going
to -- just announced their profit and they're up 10% in spite of sequestration. so i think there's just a lot of hand-waving, threatening people, and that it's not going to be -- again, we agree, not the best way to go about cutting spending or being fiscally responsible, but i don't think all the threats are going materialize. >> david, rum run. -- david, republican go ahead. >> i want to make a couple of points. i give the obama administration an f on economics. the basic problem is these people do not believe in capitalism at all. and my -- what exhibit a is the black unemployment rate. the black unemployment rate is
at 13.7%. nobody talks about this. not the congressional black caucus, not obama, nobody. and this program should devote more focus on the black unemployment rate. it's actually gone up this year. okay? and then you look at this whole debate on the minimum wage. and what is -- black folks can't find jobs at $7.25 an hour, what do you think is going to happen to the unemployment rate, not only with blacks but lower skilled people if the minimum wage is $12 an hour or $10 an hour. this is a big focus, and the actual black unemployment rate in chicago is like 19%. no one talks about this. and all this government spending, it's government spending what's going to take this economy into a good situation. it would have happened by now
because we're running up debt somebody has to pay for, and the liberals never talk about who is going to be around to pay this debt. >> david, we see some stories in the news about the up employment rates for african-americans. b.e.t. says it's 13.7% up employment for black americans in june. a story in huffington post says black unemployment drives a perpetual slow are moving recession. heidi? >> he is absolutely right. the black unemployment rate is extremely high. it's interesting -- not interesting -- it is just true that the black unemployment rate in our labor market tens to be around twice the regular unemployment rate in good times and black times. the black unemployment rate remains extremely high. the lever to bring down the black up employment rate is thus
to get back to health in the labor market overall. so we need to tim -- stimulate land, the biggs thinges substantial additional stimulus, bring down the overall unemployment rate which would bring down the black unemployment rate with it, and the other thing he said that is really important in our economy, not just now but since the 60s, is the minimum wage. the minimum wage has reduced in real value substantially since the 60s. but research is conclusive that the increases in the minimum wage that we have seen has not caused job loss. so just know that there used to be a little more ambiguity in whether economists really thought that increases in the minimum wage caused job loss but research is really clear now that the increases in minimum wage we have seen has increased the wages of low-wage workers,
and haven't caused job loss. even in times of high unemployment. and that's key. this is actually a really smart time continue crease the minimum wage, because we know it will increase wages as -- at a time when wages are stagnant, and the other thing is you actually -- general he some jobs when you increase the minimum wage, because if you think of the minimum wage is a shift of money from, say, corporate profits to low-wage workers, you're giving money into the hands of people who will spend it. and that actually stimulates the economy a little. so this is the perfect time to do a minimum wage increase. president obama talked about it, but i think this is actually a perfect time to do a minimum wage increase and it would actually help the low-wage black workes a great deal. >> we see on twitter, craig
writing in and asking: what you think about minimum wage increase. he asked would it loose son of the capital we need in the economy. >> i think the caller put his finger on something important. we have had a lot of government spending and not just under obama. he says obama deserves an f on the economy. well, president bush doesn't deserve an a, either, and he was a gigantic spender, big interventionist into every market he could think about. i don't actually think that president obama and president bush are -- even on civil liberty issues than is talk about. i think the minimum wage -- there's a chunk of that -- it hasn't actually caused job losses, depending on the way you look at it. but it actually stopped people
from hiring the really low income people, because real unemployment for -- with low skills and actually may not get fired because of an increase in minimum wage but people who are not having a job right now, will be stopped from getting a job. if people aren't employing right now, see an increase in the cost of labor in addition to actually the increase in the cost of labor that will be brought about by a lot of regulations are going to help? probably not. one of the things, we do want a vibrant labor market because that's the best way to help low-skilled workers and in fact, there's a proven way, and that's to share -- the unemployment
rate, the pigger it -- the birth it -- bigger it is, the better to alleviate poverty. but you want it to be sustainable, and you want jobs to be sustainable, and the problem with government spending, the government dund have money of its own. they have to take it somewhere else. they have to take it from the private sector and doesn't -- again, a lot of very good intention in government that opportunity materialize and in particular holds to hold low-scale and poor people. >> talking about the economy and the record of the obama administration. our guests are roar ron -- and we're joined by heidi, economist for the economic policy institute.
let's hear from andy, new york, independent line. >> caller: this is for miss derugy. could she give the top five or six actions the federal government could do to bring down regulations and uncertainty and how it would affect demand for labor, and how the same regulations and uncertain caused the labor collapse in 2008. thanks. i religion hang up -- i'll hangp and listen. >> i think that anything that would promote the labor market is a good thing. so streamlines regulations. making sure there are -- getting rid of the regulations about -- hinterring the ability to hire, the ability to do business, the ability to start a business would be a very good thing. but i think also reforming the tax code would be a really good thing, and president obama
talked about this, and there has been effort and talk about reforming the whole thing. right now, the tax code is a nightmare. it is complicated. it is unfair. it is better today, a lot of higher costs, businesses, but also it is extremely inefficient. you need to reform the tax code. and i think something that needs -- is a fundamental reform, a fundamental way of how washington thinks we need to put an tone cronyism, which is not just the signature of the obama administration. it's -- this is what congress and administrations do. it actually caters to the special interest friends, at the expense of everyone else, and i
think we need to put an end to -- like getting rid of subsidies for some businesses when everyone else is not getting and not just like green energy. it's oil, everything -- i would agree that all the special treatment that companies get, in particular they get because they're close to power. >> your response in a moment. let's listen to president obama's comments this week on tax reform. he gave his first speech on the economic pick expire what he wants to see, this new moment he has come out with, this week, at knox college in illinois. >> i hear from too many people from across the country, in letters or face-to-face, they feel as if retirement is receding from their grasp. they
can't see it. it's getting farther and farther away. today, rising stock market has millions of retirement balances going up. and some of the losses that have taken place during the financial crisis have been recovered. but we till live with an upside-down system where those at the top, folks like me, get generous tax incentives to save, while tens of magic hard-working meshes who are struggling get none of the breaks at all. so as we work to reform our tax code, we should find new ways to make it easier for workers to put away money and free meddle class family from fear they won't be able to retire. [cheering] >> and if congress i looking for
a ban ban place to get started. we don't have to look far. we hemmingsed immigration reform before. studies shows immigration reform makes workes pay their share of taxes and shores up social security system for years. >> president on wednesday. heidi, tax reform. >> so, tax reform is important. right now we have a tax code that is a progressive tax code but has gotten less so over the last several decades. so we have very unequal outcomes just from the market. our tax code does some redistribution but less so than it used to. the strong public support for taxing the wealthy more, having them pay their fair share, so i think that is the direction the tax reform should go. there's already been some of that. some of the subsidies that cover -- under obamacare have
already been increased taxes on the wealthy, implemented to pay for this. that's a step in the right direction. >> let's hear from anne in north carolina, democrat. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that i would give brush brush compile the republican party an f-minimum news for their policy on the economic. in 2008, the economy crashed with the republican policy and for some reason the republicans seem to going the that. the government h guest was talk beth the republican free market and that crashed the economy. i don't understand. >> before we go to your serving point, what grade would you give the obama administration? >> he has tried everything. the republicans have obstructed everything. >> so you think he gets an a for effort? >> caller: yes. >> what about for the results? >> caller: the results are not
as he would like it because the republicans -- that's the second thing is wag getting ready to say. he has the jobs bill which has been in congress since 201 and they refuse to act on it. then i listened to the person this morning talking about the black high unemployment. i guess if the president said today he was going to announce a special program to target black unemployment there would be complete outrage. so he is doing everything he can to try to help the economy. but the republicans decided on the first night of his inauguration in 2008 that they would do everything they could to undermine his presidency. >> let's get a response. >> so, i think actually republicans, as they've been governing for many, many, many years, are mostly market advocates. they talk a good game but when
you look at spending under president bush, adjusted for inflation, it increased by 53%. under president clinton, it was 12.5%, and obviously president obama has kept -- spending has gone down and it's been mostly -- as for the republicans, i know a defender of republicans action but you always hear republicans getting in the way, and yet president obama's managed to pass two gigantic bills, which it's dodd-frank or obamacare, and there is a lot of bipartisan action for things that are considered not especially good things but agreement to continue a lot of the same policies that were implemented during the bush years and to continue them into
this term. so, yes, republicans are trying to fight things they don't like, but i don't feel if they had godden their way, president obama implementing a lot of his key goals. >> let's hear from jody in iowa. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> host: good. >> does anybody remember, does anyone know the main reason why the collapse in 2008 and the housing bubble? >> i'm glad you brought that up and i'd just like to say i'm an iowan so i'm happy to be talking to iowa. you're absolutely right. it's missed the reason the economy was brought to its knees was the bursting of the $7 trillion housing bubble. and that could have been -- if not avoided, made a lot less bad
if we had had policymakers who would notice the housing bubble and do something to help it. if we had subchairs out there saying, look everyone, we had a housing bubble. if they were alerting the public to this we could have actually dampened it in and the fact they didn't do that was a huge mistake and allowed it to grow up to $7 trillion, and win it burst, it caused massive suffering of the american public, and that continues to this day. so, you're absolutely right. that is -- the housing bubble is the thing that caused the great recession, and we are still, years later, feeling its big effects and with the pace of growth we're seeing, it's likely we're not going to get back to house and the labor market for another five years at least, from beginning to end. that bursting of that housing
bubble will likely cause at least 10 years of elevated unemployment and hardship for american workers. hopefully our federal reserve has learned something from this to know that it is their job to look out for asset bubbles, to warn the public, to keep the sort of thing from happening in the future. >> are you still with us? >> yes. >> response? any followup? >> caller: $35,000 i lost because of this, that when your balance sheet guess to zero, there's no way -- now the stock market may be looking good but there's no way i'm going recoup it. second of all, when he bailed out the $50 million for gm, if they still owe the american people $18 billion, but they're spending all that money and they're building plants in china
and mexico. how is that helping to recoup? we're never going to see that money and it was nancy pelosi and harry reid and push the people who could not afford a meager, they threatened them. they admitted that. i'm so afraid for my country. >> host: adrian writes the housing bubble created by pushing the so-called american dream to own a home in the late 90s. >> i actually was going to say, i think the housing bubble, like most bubbles, is the result of the unhealthy marriage of the government and the private sector. government decides -- sets itself to favor an industry and sometimes people like the american dream, owning a house, but also the real estate industry, the banks through length and that creates a bubble, and it's unreal
expectations, and i think it is asking too much of people in government to actually be able to control themselves and also to monitor. there were a lot of people who were actually warning about this bubble, and yet, and yet no one really listened. more importantly, maybe they will learn something about the housing bubble and it's not clear because there's a lot of tax breaks for -- that favors housing, but also they're creating a lot of bubbles in the student loans. and you can bet that they're going to be creating a lot of bubbles in other industries whenever that happens. again, it's not the government alone. it's certainly the role -- an important role, important player that crisis, walt the government's role in housing finance and also when it's
married to the private sector, and this why i say that actually cronyism is a real problem. the government's picking winners and losers. actually a really source of a lot of distortion, a lot of destruction, a lot of losses for -- and wealth destruction for people in the economy. >> president obama talked about housing in his speech on wednesday. let's take a listen to the president. >> the good news is over the past four years we have helped more responsible home owners stay in their homes and today sales are up and prices are up and fewer americans see their homes underwater. but we're not done yet. the key now is to encourage home ownership that it not based on unrealistic bubbles but is based on a solid foundation where buyers and lenders, playing with
the same set of rules that is fair. and i've asked congress to pass a really good bipartisan idea. one that was championed by mitt romney's economic advisor, and this is the idea to give every home owner the chance to refinance their mortgage while rates are still low so they can save thousands of dollars a year. [applause] >> be like a tax cut for families who can refinance. most acting on my own to cut red tape for responsible families who want to get a mortgage, but the bank is saying, no. we'll work with both parties to turn the beige page-- -- page on fannie mae and freddie mac and build a system that is rock solid for future generations. >> we're looking at the economic record of the obama administration. our vests are veronica, from
george mason university where she is a senior research fellow. my next caller is katherine in new hampshire. independent. >> caller: good morning. i have a suggestion. president obama spoke of the u.s. economy now and in the future. if the government does a detroit bailout i hope it will not do the same old thing of propping up failures. instead u.s. dollars be given to create a 20200 detroit jetson city, making it energy friendly, environmentally healthy, and people in business pleasant. this 2001, 2002 -- 2100, 2200 detroit jetson city would be a place where expertes, u.s. and
the world, would come to see, study, teach, how to create cities of the future. >> okay, talking about credit being a moment of opportunity and trying to create the next generation community. heidi? >> i don't know a lot of dedetails of detroit but she brings up a really good point. one thing we could be doing right now is making investments in places that have been particularly hard hit by unemployment, and detroit is definitely one of those. >> who should make the investment? >> at a time like this -- very time specific. wouldn't want to be doing this if the economy is booming but when we're reel -- really in a slump, this is a time when the government should be doing it. it was never tried. the original stimulus package was very much not the government directly hiring people, but this
time around we could really think about having some kind of program where the government comes in and directly hires people in places that have been particularly hard hit by unemployment. it's not going to be anyone talking -- definitely something that could happen places have sustained high unemployment. >> i don't agree. i think that detroit is a good example of big government policy and the federal government has invested a lot of money and so did the city and state government, and i think the -- actually has big government -- unfortunately we have the bad incentives on investing and it's one of the striking things about the way the stimulus money was spent, when we actually look at whether it went and tried to achieve the goals that the obama
administration said they ooh -- they, would one of this ways that stimulus works. you hire people in unemployment lines. this has not happened. and then there's the add difficulty with government intervention, it actually people on the ground may not actually respond the way the government hopes they will. you can expect with major project like detroit, the government is giving money to the states hoping it would hire employees. what did states do? big budget deficits and didn't actually use the money as the federal government intended them to do it. actually built a budget gap, and there's too much faith that we put in the ability of the government. even when the government has the right intentions, and even when there is a problem that we see,
to actually deliver on the promises, and i think detroit -- detroit is a good example of a lot of good intentions gone bad. unfortunately a lot of government intervention, a lot of -- very much overbloated public sector for lots of promises made to public employees which are going to have to be paid for by someone. >> roy, richmond, indiana, our next caller. he is a democrat. >> hello. i'd like to agree with the one guest you have, cronyism is a big problem in washington, dc, and people need to realize that we need to get the old people out and get new politicians in. and also agree with the other woman, too, detroit would be a
good place to start a new deal, and i really think that's what we need, is the politicians to have the guts to go forward and implement a new deal. >> thanks. let's hear from carl in west virginia. a republican caller. go ahead. >> caller: i would like to ask heidi, what about the $17 trillion debt that we owe? what effect does that have on our economy today? and if you want to compare liberalism against conserve tim, you compare texas to california. texas is booming, california is practically in bankruptcy. you compare ohio to illinois. ohio is coming out of recession pretty good. illinois is like california. they're practically in
>> that is exactly the time when the government comes in spending generating economic activity. the safest thing for helping the public understand a little bit of macro economics that that government needs to tighten their belts but that is completely wrong. added time when americans tie in their belts when people are not spending with no income, that is exactly
that is the time that the government needs to step did to polis out. when they have steve is in the government pulls backed but not yet. we could be doing more. >> from of the economic policy institute, but the idea that government should be helping we're out of the recession in the economy is growing in you just said yourself it is a good time to hold back for those to advocate spending right now
are actually not calling for the government to spend less in the good times it is particularly true of the state level where they have cut spending to reduce its deficits but then it goes way back out at the federal level italy goes one way and that is up. the times or bad times they spend more and more and more. even that the government should be spending nor the power of the incentive cover the incentive of people who work is always more in that is a real problem. >> host: talking about the
obama is administration the end we have an independent scholar from maryland to. >> caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak. the president has a steady push to economic recovery in all businesses should stay away from blaming the bush era of policies or any other issue is whether a housing bubble or other issues that has a creative fog on the people. and with the leader of our country the of president should establish a solid economic recovery plan to put together the greatest minds of the best men and women. he should get it done by december of this year and start to implement by 2014.
by focusing on issues like energy independence we also work together with the president to help the country or we're looking at a very long recovery. i voted for governor romney because i thought he would help businesses to turn around the the elections are over we have our president in we should work with him and help him to turn our country's economy around to get away from the red line and to get a handout from them. >> host: thank you for your call. first about the above a perspective on manufacturing ?
this is said yesterday in jacksonville, florida. >> we have to bring more jobs back to america. we have to keep creating good jobs in manufacturing we have to gate blood dash create good jobs in wind and solar it industry and then natural gas revolution bringing costs down that manufactures a they cannot locate here because they think we have a durable and reliable supplies of energy we have to create more jobs of what you we're doing right here to build. >> host: the president is talking about manufacturing what do you want to see happen? >> one of the biggest things it will get a little wonky but i can make this simple but i wish it were that the
dollar is too strong. we need the dollar to be weaker to be leaner and meaner or whenever you call it but when it is too strong that means at our staff is more expensive to people around the world so they buy less than three export less. and a stronger dollar here means that other items are cheaper to us. so a strong dollar is overvalued is the biggest leveraged that the obama the administration couple -- could pull to keep prices
consumers can buy things at a much cheaper price did we would at the national market and in the discussion the benefit that consumers get it is also for the economy. but that being said the president said i am sorry, i in single-minded but again this is one of the areas if you looked if you listen to what the government said
they led to many to those it had capital in the first place to the giant energy company and again allow these programs have good intentions and the benefit big businesses in of the smaller ones. >> host: looking at the administration's record on the economy. the public speeches so far this week looking at economic policies moving forward and infrastructure, also green jobs in manufacturing. our guest is ms. de rugy also ms. shierholz the
economist on economic policy institute. we have a democrat on the line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. regarding the obama economic policy the biggest problem he has with it is he has a poor job of communicating that to the public. case in point was the payroll tax. i saw of the two-party people picketing and complaining about these acts not even realizing they had a payroll tax cut. and i definitely think they need to do a better job. >> this is true not just for president obama but some
things are little complicated and more complex than they look on paper it for example, the payroll tax i thought that was a terrible idea in the context we are supposed to collect this money to help pay for their retirement of the retirees. you cannot have it both ways you can not claim you have social security that is self funded then say we're not going to collect the tax that actually funds that program. he and that made the ink is specially in admitting that you do that by blowing more money so there is a lot of things that i would laugh at the debates but i don't think it is specific to
president obama. >> there was a payroll tax cut as part of the stimulus help being to the payroll taxes but it did not need the money was going to social security. >> exactly. that was the debate in a dizzying the problem was obama he really did not do what he could have done to help educate the public when everyone else type nusseibeh this is exactly the time this we need to stay in the economy so we can have a robust economy but as i look back where was the biggest misstep on messaging? to think it re-read educating the public i think it really could have helped people to understand the role of government that we
bring in the worst downturn of history but it wouldn't if the economy was back on. >> host: her focus is on trends and unemployment also a compensation in the income and wealth inequality for the labor market overall. holding a ph.d. in economics from the university of michigan. our other guest also has a ph.d. in economics and a senior research fellow at george mason university her book is on the economy in the budget and also a taxation in you can read her writings regularly in "reason" magazine also writing in the washington examiner and also at "the national review" online. talking about the president's economic agenda
and policy and what you looking forward to in the future? our next caller is from tennessee. republican. >> caller: can you comment of employment diana small business owner i have had quite a bit of the employees that make minimum-wage and up but it seems employees are certain people know how to work the system they will work three year four months then they stop working then get unemployment. i honestly feel that the economy is getting better but if we could do a better job of scrutinizing the
people i feel an employe and it would go down in the more consistent with their job is all about accountability. people make more money on unemployment than being employed. >> that is a good point about the cost of turnover to companies it you know, hiring and firing of people leaving a and it is the high cost for businesses. one of the things that to be done to reduce the cost is increase the minimum wage there is good evidence that actually reduces turnover. they are less likely to leave the job and that can save a lot of money and then
the other thing that is interesting about the unemployment insurance benefits we had a big expansion in this downturn and aftermath the worst slump you have seen in 70 years with far fewer job opportunities an increasing unemployment insurance a lot of research but those increases of unemployment are not keeping people from mckean for work in fact, the interest of the unemployment insurance benefits that they have so few job opportunities are long-term unemployed many people have just given up but if they
get that unemployment check we have to be actively seeking work so one of the sayings the extended benefit has done has keeping people looking for work in the force that is good because it will likely increase the shares of the labor market. >> i like the optimism but i worry because that is my biggest fear of keeping people from but to the caller's question the government intervention fits perfectly well with intentions but unfortunately it has the consequences it
is workers and companies that have the unintended consequences and that is one of the reasons why we have to think of ways to try to reenergize our economy. >> host: you talk about education let's listen to the comments on wednesday he was speaking at a college in illinois. >> if you think education is expensive way to you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century. [cheers and applause] if we don't make this investment we will put our kids, our workers and our country at a competitive disadvantage for decades. we have to begin in the
earliest years to make high-quality preschool available for every kid in america at. [cheers and applause] not just because we know it works for our kids begins a vital support to working parents. i will take action in the education area so as we speak federal agencies are moving to connect the new percent of america's students high-speed internet over the next five years. we're making that happen right now. [applause] we have already begun meeting with it tacked on to
producers to redesign the schools to teach the skills required for the high-tech economy. >> what is the role of education? >> at the college level the dow getting the university diploma increases your income education is extremely important but that is another area where that is a massive involvement of the government and i think government intervention is not always good in spite of per-capita spending with both the state and federal limits some '02 how to do
that rather than just throw money at because it is so important just one of the ways to give people the money to let their children go to school it is even more important for the low income parents usually in extremely bad school districts that what they get with more flexibility to move through the school district that empowers people and parents to set of continuing to throw money. >> host: college in rome and falls it fell 2% in 2012 for the significant decline since the nineties but nearly all of that was
for-profit community colleges now miss a beat you with the traditional for your non profit colleges will see a contraction that will last for several years. was looking at your perspective would education means. >> that is an important point there is this myth may be one of of silver linings that the job opportunities are so weak that they otherwise not would have gotten then they are better off but a philip get the data it shows with these numbers it did not have been. we did not see enrollment. in fact, it is down but we definitely did not see a recession because well they may have the resources of
most students need to work in college so if they're not able to find a job they cannot afford school also with the collapse of the housing double they will be much less likely to help those kids afford college that is what we did not see the increase of the enrollment. that is hurting the cohort coming out. because we no college education matters a lot one of the things that is important is not to bv all and all we know the wage has not increased even before the recession hit the hit that stagnation of people in the wages there other factors that are driving the
wage trend in our economy not just educational disparities so many of the top of the income and wage distribution is important to an individual with to solve the problems of the economy we need to look at other places. >> host: giving the administration a low-grade on its performance of the economy. from a radio show says i give obama at the grade of b+. we have the independent line. go-ahead. >> caller: my concern i have the boys and a girl the only thing i have seen happen is the rich get richer in the bourse stayed
for. -- the for poor state poor. but if i don't do my job i don't have it's any longer. i cannot believe i cannot believe someone could not do something about all these people in washington getting the kickbacks in not doing their job. that they said they would do to begin with. >> this is a heartbreaking call and i share a lot of your concerns. i will say that i strongly believe in america and its
resilience and it can turn around but it goes back to where restarted. the employment share of the population has stagnated and it does not create that what we should be seeing and i will say a lot has been done by the government wes has been done but it has backfired in hasn't delivered on the lot of promises rubbermaid with the interventions were taken but i do share your concern i do think the labor market is stuck right now and hopefully it will not be like that forever but again a lot has been done by the government just has not worked. >> i really appreciate your
call. we talk about what needs to be dead right now and what of the things they your call does underscore that we have had a lack of growth of good jobs even before the recession began we really did not see wages grow very well for most over three decades. obama talked about that is specifically mention the decline is innovation that one of the causes of that lack of growth i think we can focus so lot of what we can do to make sure the businesses that want to join the union are able to to update the liberal law so that matches increased drive over the last several decades we have seen a huge
growth of consumption that they can go to put the law has not kept up with the growth of that industry so one of the things we can do is to shore up the labor law to ensure those that want to join the you dinner able to because we know that is one of the ways for growth and good jobs in this country. . .
>> of compromise us the core value. the ama has long endorsed the principle that everyone has the right to refuse medical intervention. the world medical association and the international red cross have determined that force-feeding through the use of restraint is not only an ethical violation, but compromise is free well. >> my concern is that let's dissatisfied the numbers that you might or might not inclusionary is you can never
tried it. do you honestly think the people will stop fighting for the release of those prisoners is because there'll in the united states? >> it is hard to understand. this was part of the medical treatment and the detainees are part of the national security they should be transferred. we must find lawful dispositions for all detainees as we have done. >> this weekend on c-span, the senate judiciary subcommittee looks at the implication implications of closing this. also at 10:00 a.m. on booktv, polite coverage from the
roosevelt reading festival on booktv. live from hyde park, new york. live on c-span3's american history tv, president obama and chuck hagel commemorate the 60th anniversary of the korean war armistice. that is also saturday morning at 10:00 p.m. >> the first ladies are very integral. are they supposed to be the mother in chief and first mate? so to navigate that the president is supposed to be out of state, the ideal fashion as the is supposed to be the mother in sheet or is she supposed to be first helpmateth she reallyo
understand what is going on in the administration. just understand her husband's political agenda. so you can't really separate that. >> as we continue our conversation, richard morton smith and others talked about the role of the first lady and its move from traditional home and family to activate them on behalf of important issues on monday night at nine eastern on c-span. i. >> a look at retirement with bob reynolds giving the keynote address. it is hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce and aarp.
together. the chamber, contrary to what some people may think, we can often join with nontraditional allies. we have joined with the unions on immigration reform, joined with the civil rights community on negotiating many amendments through the ada. we just had a big event yesterday at the chamber celebrating those achievements. i would like to use that as a model for how we are going to be able to cooperate with aarp in many important retirement issues. both personally and a matter of policy. when we think about 10,000 people waking up everyday, the statistics are so scary. a lot of people are honestly not seen both.
as a matter of fact, age 65 and older population is expected to double in size in the next 25 years so that by 2030, almost one out of every 35,000 american citizens will be 65 years or older. there only 3 million people in 1965 that without it. which means that the situation our hands and we need to try to solve it. i'm grateful to be working for the aarp. >> with that, let me turn it over to dad that devlin of the aarp. >> thank you, andy.
on behalf of aarp, i want to thank the chamber of commerce and i want to thank all of you. today we are putting the spotlight on a dangerously low level of savings that many middle-class americans have you chelated for their retirement. this includes the hardship and the downward mobility of old age for much of the american public. while we are hosting us here at the national press club, it is not the present crisis that often dominates the need. but it is very real. we hear the directly from our members. for the last two years, aarp has
spoken with more than 10 million americans age 50 years old and an older about their concerns on health and retirement security to an effort that we call it arp. i'm concerned about being able to afford medicine, many say, and basic necessities. i don't even think the possibility of retirement is always there. these words are backed up by statistics. consider this. in 2010, four out of 10 families have nothing set aside for their retirement. i think about that. nothing set aside for their retirement. even half have left and that is
not part of this ancestor especially as people live into their 80s and 90s and even past 100 years old. many years from now the golden years when even the bronze. life expectancy has increased the cost of retirement and that is more than what people are saving over their working lives. i will give you one more statistic. according to fidelity, a 65-year-old couple that retires today needs savings of $220,000
we must improve the long-term alcoa outlook. aarp in reference to the chamber of commerce or highlighting three broad strategies to make a real difference in the standard of living for retirees. first, we must expand access for retirement savings plans at their workplace. right now only about one in two workers have the author to enroll in it. many don't bother to enroll. also what more plans are available we know that making savings automatic makes it easy and can have a huge impact on
how prepared workers are for their retirement. we also need to keep and strengthen tax incentives for people of all income levels. to also know that it is important for people of all income levels and finally we need to do a better job of educating the public about the importance of savings and how much they are going to need in retirement we want people to have a clear understanding about the potential costs of retirement that can easily last i 20 or 30 or even 40 years the public should also understand averaging less than $15,000 a
year, in some cases much lower than that. we must supplement our social security. these strategies can make a difference in america's planning and future. as everyone in the room knows, people in washington give the grade on a lot of things. the purpose of a secure retirement should not be one of them. the value of retiring piece of mind and dignity is recognized across partisan lines. it is something that all the software family members and for ourselves. that is by aarp is here today with a joint statement. we knew that we could find something to agree upon current organizations have resources to
strengthen security. each need and will work together on this issue and create a safe place for the president and congress to come together and develop real solutions. today we are hoping to start a national conversation for it. this includes responsible commonsense ideas. unlike some of the other comes in our nation faces from a lack of retirement savings is actually one that we can fix. that is what the aarp members are asking us and we are listening to them. i would like to turn it over now to my friend randy johnson. he will introduce the first speaker. [applause] [applause]
there are 560 million contribution plan and their benefit plans covering more than 17 million active participants. every year, private employers spend over 40 billion income retirement benefits. and i think that this is interesting because furthermore according to the department of labor, nearly 80% of full-time workers have access to a retirement plan in more than 80% of the workers participate in those plans. they are doing the best they can with limited resources to provide the retirement of some sort for their employees and
that, you touched on the principles and retirement impacts all of us. i set the visibility event yesterday, events are great. at this time from i would like to introduce bob reynolds, chairman and investor. he is the perfect person to start a conversation and has been a leader in the retirement services for decades. in 1989 bob has been outspoken
>> this hearing and the team are coming together this morning, and finding common ground and strengthening retirement savings is an inspiration. i am reminded of humphrey bogart and his famous last line in the movie cost of opera. i think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. and i sure hope that it is. we are doing everything we can to advance the cause of security in america. we do all of us share common goals. we all want every working american to be able to save for a dignified end well funded retirement. trusting that it is in the best interest of every american
business to see every working american have a real ownership at stake in the american enterprise. i am very confident that these goals can be achieved in tandem by strengthening both are public and private retirement systems in the crucial elements that make those so successful. there is too much knowledge in this audience today to really talk about retirement savings shortfalls and woes and problems. there is serious risk of poverty if we do not act soon to shore up both are public and private retirement system and lift the retirement savings rate. that is why we are here this morning. but the most salient point today
and i think most everyone realizes that this is a challenge. in the workplace, i know what actually works. my greatest hope for this conference would be that we could begin today to retrain the national debate on retirement savings, away from the problems and towards solutions and then onto actions to make these solutions real. so i'm going to focus this morning on successes that are taking place within america's existing savings systems and i will discuss more actions that would realize the potential of these plans to help them but
these plans into retirement savings for life. i will close by suggesting that by the long-term benefits savings can offer, and national now, far outweighs any short-term cost areas better yet, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. we already have the key structures and insights that we need to build on. to put it in a nutshell, there is nothing wrong with 401k's that cannot be fixed about what is right with 401k is. this is especially true since the passage of the protection act of 2006. while defined contribution plans have been displacing since the
mid-1980s, congress and regulators recognize that these 401k plans have in fact been the primary source for america's retirement income for the future. by endorsing the best savings plan, namely auto enrollment and automatic savings escalation and guidance to qualified default investment, we have a qualitative change, one that has already begun to transform these savings plans in this country. for the better, i might add.
pre-pension protection act, workplace savings plans, they were seen with post ppa plans across corporate america and this is creating a problem. in the seven years since we have seen this, like the auto enrollment spread and raised retirement readiness. this includes the lifetime income surveys over the last three years of collaboration of our partners.
realize that the solution to america's retirement challenge lies in payroll deduction. those who don't have it is truly staggering. our lifetime income research shows us that the median americans have no savings on the job or are on track to replace just 41% of their work like in comes once they retire. that is including social security.@ that is including social security. americans who do have access to savings plans are on track to replace 73% of the
pre-retirement incomes we are on track to replace 79% of the work to live income. those were automatically enrolled in their plans are doing even better. those who are enrolled in auto escalation are headed to 95% replacement rates based interplays over 100% of their working income once they choose to retire.
that, my friends, is success by any measure. we are not talking about some tiny outlying exception here many americans are on track today to replace more than 100% of their current income in retirement that is what i believe the next round of retirement policy debate should be about in america. how can we make this success contagious? if we define success, as an enabling working people to replace pre-retirement income for life, the answers are right
in front of our noses. the steps would take is here to retirement security. let's go full auto. auto enrollment, auto escalation , higher deferrals, plus automatic default. there really is no reasonable doubt that these basic structural elements raise participation and deferrals and account balances and the likelihood of retirement
readiness. knowing this, i do feel like a medical doctor who has discovered a vaccine that can prevent a serious illness. in this case, financial stress and elderly poverty. that is why i would love to see these auto features be made mandatory for all workplace savings plans. in other words, a requirement of all plant design, either through the next round of pension legislation, by spreading these practices, we could lift retirement readiness on more than 70 million working americans.
as i see it, we almost have a fiduciary responsibility to aim for that and no excuse not to. this includes workplace access to all working americans it is actually quite inexpensive for companies to implement. of course, if we do require companies to offer savings plans, they can be compensated by the tax code and protected by liability just like the pension protection act. the gains in retirement readiness, for low to moderate income workers, will be
astronomical. proposals like the auto ra have been by opposition to the very idea of a mandate. but can we not encourage policymakers to design incentives that make simple savings plans so attractive that every small business will be motivated to offer them. at the individual level, auto and home and in the workplace savings is absolutely not a mandate. it is a choice, provided there is an easy opt out for them. we do, already have a mandate in the form of fica taxes. everyone is subject to the fica mandate and they should also have the individual option to
save for their own future. we could not only lived the retirement readiness and dignity of million of the least advantaged workers. the whole contribution concept. the best savings incentives, in my view, is to go on the offense and extend them to everyone the action that we need to take is to lift the bar on savings across the workplace system. from the roughly 7% level for the current system to a new baseline of 10% plus.
there is no more powerful driver of retirement success of referral rates. i feel that fiduciary duty is the new industry baseline even 7% is enough to ensure retirement readiness. i know that these steps are easy to say but hard to do. securing savings access for all of us will surely require new legislation we are saving 40 to
thank you all very much. i'm happy to take questions. i thank you. [applause] >> yes, ma'am? >> yes, this is a little bit off topic. and the concept of encouraging people to have confidence in the savings systems. you have asked for diversification and all of the 401k plans and etc. the concept of long-term investments and letting your money grow with them certainly makes sense.
but in the volatility and the risk and the savings, it has to be a piece in terms of people having confidence in wanting to invest their money. i can't see how that isn't an important federation. >> that is a very important piece of it. which has spurred the invention and these funds are put together and it has reached a specific time horizon. the longer someone's time rising, the more predictable returns are. they have become a big part of
the industry and have solved that problem, which is a real problem for savers today. >> thank you. your comments sound very relevant for people who are in traditional states. but there is an increasing part of the population who is getting a part of this. a lot of people are now in temporary agencies where they ended up juggling lots of different jobs. part-time teachers, they run websites and so on. can you comment about how these ideas can help people like that, many of whom are frankly not earning a lot of money and may have trouble setting aside funds, given their relatively low income levels.
>> that is a great question. the current unemployment level and underemployed level in this country should be an embarrassment to everyone in the city. but that is another matter. the reason why we say this has the option in providing individuals a choice, it is very interesting when individuals have it available to them and they do save for retirement. i think that since retirement is a tax deferral, it is all pretax. so the cost of it is not dollar for dollar, per se. we do pay tax. the but to your point i think it should be made available. but they are enrolled as they say. >> one of the towns that i worry about is even if people save
enough and invest appropriately, there is always the risk about living your savings if you live in extraordinarily long life. annuities are very expensive. there is a lot of things to think about. you have ideas on how to address those problems? stamp yes, i do. we know what makes it work. i think that we are in the early innings of innovations and solutions and ways to do it. i do know that if you save enough, you should have enough for retirement.
you have 75, 70 years old, you have these budgets and then knowing when you turn that age, you have money for the rest of your life. but i do believe that we are in the very early stages of income solutions around retirement. >> yes hello, i have a question sent out then in 1978, over the last 30 years the average balance for 401k plans for someone who has maxed out the whole 9 yards is about $280,000. with that being said, the average account balance talks
about savings and investing. would you be opposed to putting this into an after-tax plan as well as part of a mandate? >> i have no problem with the after-tax. because retirements have always been a three-legged stool. social security, private system, and personal savings. so the more individual savings that is spelled out, the better the retirement. as far as balances at all, i would tell you that it was passing the legislation in the first 401k plans in this country
were called salary reduction plans. who wants to sign up for a salary reduction agreement. [applause] so they were supplemental plans that were part of many companies in america. microsoft started their company with a 401k plan. many have converted to it later. it did not become the main savings really until slightly before the pension protection act and after it. a lot of people are trying to judge a system of workers 60 years old and above. also a relatively new system. again, the numbers i said you are from actual people.
people replacing over 100% of their income throughout their lives. so we need to give the system a chance to work. we need to get in the right features. and we have the basis for a great retirement system of the country. i will take that to the grave. thank you very much. [applause] >> more now on retirement planning with a discussion on the channel content challenges that women and minorities face in their attempts to save for retirement. this is 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> good morning. to start things off, you have heard some statistics. there are a couple that are out there that are real eye openers. the center for retirement research at boston college estimates of the retirement savings gap, which is the difference between what people have saved and what they need to save, is about $6.6 trillion. the employee benefit research institute using a different model with different data and assumptions estimates of the retirement savings gap is about $4.3 trillion. that is just for baby boomers and fourth-generation x. this also has similar conclusions as to who is at
greatest risk for not living with their retirement. they found that this generation, and i will say just two years away from turning 50, is more at risk than baby boomers. low income households, which include many african americans and hispanics are at greater risk and women are greater risk than men. so the goal of this first panel is to learn more about the barriers to retirement savings for women and african-americans and hispanics. help needed on our three experts in the field. and we have going from i left my right, patty bjork, director of retirement research and we have leticia miranda, who is a council and the president of women's institute for secured accounting. thank you, ladies. we will have this as a discussion so there are no formal presentations.
what we would also like to do is have questions as we go along. so if you have a question as the mood strikes you, raise your hand and we'll have a microphone come around and i will ask you to identify who you are for our panelists. with akamai will start things off with a couple of questions and then we will go from there. we have heard statistics about how unprepared americans are for retirement. the first question i will start at the end is to get your take on it. it is how concerned are women about being prepared and being able to save enough. >> i think pretty much every study has shown for the past 20 years is that this is women's top priorities. they are very worried about retirement. there is also a lot of surveys they give a glimmer of hope where the them market is doing
great and the economy's doing great people feel better. that is a big issue. they go into nursing homes and they say who's there. it is a scary process. >> we have interruptions and employment. so those are some of the big factors. >> yes, the earnings, they are twice as likely to work part-time as we sort of mentioned. that women have always traditionally work part-time because of family. caregiving issues. >> are hispanics concerned about retirement security? >> yes, they are concerned about retirement security. similar to the situation come and they are more likely to earn less money and do have a longer
life expectancy than other americans. unfortunately we tend to be the people who are working for companies that do not offer retirement savings plans to their workers. so our community is more dependent on social security and every other racial and ethnic group in the country. about 53% of hispanics depend on social security and these are important issues to our community, as well as just social security and making sure that that option remains something strong for all of these individuals. hopefully we can work to create a better private retirement system that will include lower to moderate income workers as well. we have done some work on this. but what we know in terms of planning for retirement? >> that is a big question. we did a survey to employees and
we got 19,000 responses. 20% of the people that we send these questioners out to paradigm that is kind of significant. we heard from whites and asian-americans, one out of four have a plan in place. for hispanics and african-americans, it was one out of four. then we asked are you saving enough for retirement. the villagers saving enough. 40% said no and hispanics at 36% and then asian americans and whites were 19% and 30%. i think the point was nobody knows how much they need to say because they don't have plans in place. everyone just has a feeling that
we are not saving enough. >> okay, this is something that i hear in this is an argument that folks make that low-income people don't have the ability or the desire to say that social security will be enough. i'm just curious in terms of the work that you have done. what is your experience that i? how you react to that? >> a lot of the work is with moderate and low-income people. i would just like to say they want to say this much is as anyone else. they want to have savings. a lot of times what happens is that they end up not having the money after a long period of time. they need it for other things. they want to be able to have the ability to save and it's really
important. we are working right now on a project with caregivers and in-home businesswomen, caretakers of children. i never think people will show up for weeks later, especially moderate or low income people. they do it because they want information the information and they want to know how to do it. >> sometimes i do talk show radio in spanish and i have had farmworkers call me in the central valley when i'm talking about retirement security. saying that i would really wish i could save more money, but what could we do to raise the minimum wage because most of my money i have to use for eating. it's a very important issue. we actually dead a survey recently with hispanics in california whose annual earnings for approximately 25,000 per
year. we found that 73% of them were saving money in some way or another. even when they don't always have access to a bank account. because a lot of banks require a lot of id and social security numbers and so on. that is a barrier for those in our community who do did not have legal status in this company. people are still finding a way to save money. and they do want and know that this is important and they want a retirement to save and put money away for their retirement. i have a hot a lot of people talking about that. >> okay, let me just ask a question here. because you mentioned about financial institutions and i think the one thing that i have heard is that hispanics and african-americans tend to be less trusting where they feel less welcome. is that a barrier to saving? >> welcome having a bank account is correlated with being able to
save money. we have seen not in our recent survey that we did. what we found was customer service and feeling welcome or two very important issues for people when they were selecting a financial institution where they could save money. we didn't really ask about the trust issue. just customer service, language access, those things were very important. >> okay, going back to the study that we did. it covered 60 large plans and we looked at this to see people, it how people are contributing. 50% are not. then when you put an automatic enrollment, which is a big part of the conversation, it typically will see asian-americans intervening three quarters.
two thirds of african-americans and hispanics will contribute to a plan. when we put an automatic enrollment, it almost neutralizes that issue. everyone is up to 80% because of new hires and younger generations. they are not opting out. so it's giving us this band across the board. >> let me just pozner and see if there are any questions. okay, if you have a question, please raise your hand. we will try to answer it. >> yes, have about savingsave you any informn about savings were enrollment among people who work at relatively low paying retail establishments like mcdonald's and so forth? >> that was part our survey and
studies. we did see the dissipation levels significantly vary by race. but we did have retail as is part of that. it is much lower than the average, which we know of. automatic enrollment does help everyone to increase their rates. but we just need to have the escalation and other features tied to it. so it is in tough areas as well. >> are you talking that the default rate? >> just. >> 53% are talking about 3% or less. galecki said earlier in the discussion, it should be six or seven and escalating a past 10. we are putting those defaults in lower, we have to ask away. that we would like to see them put in higher and continue to escalate. otherwise savings rates for those who aren't automatically enrolled are significantly lower
than those and i said that kind of odd. if you have automatic enrollment, it will be lowered and you are not default to have those levels. >> and questions? >> there has been a lot of media attention on 401k plan leakage. i wanted to know about your work with low income workers. is that an issue that you see more common with low income and minority workers and other groups? >> this question is on leakage, how big of a problem is it for low income earners, and do you have any information on that? >> i think what the data shows is for women in general have
less savings. so when they weave a job, their rollover benefit will be much lower. so that probably encompasses a lot of low income workers as well. especially in the occupations. and i think that we did some work. i had heard a number like 5 billion per year is the penalty per month that people are paying for, you know, taking out their money early and a lot of that is low income and the treasury department has a very consultative paper on all of that. that is the only place i have heard of that. ..
one thing i like to request, i asked is what are the major barriers from your perspective for getting hispanics to save more? >> right. well, the huge elephant in the room for our community, especially, is the fact that we don't -- we work for companies that do not offer any form of employer sponsored retirement plans. people have no way to save through their paycheck as, you know, discussed earlier.
so two-thirds of hispanics work at the place that doesn't offer retirement plans. and they know it's about 50% for all workers. it's actually lower for white workers. it's about 40% of them. we don't -- yeah, all of these questions. what is the 401(k). these are things that irrelevant in a majority of our community. until we do something -- we need to change our private retirement system and make it inclusive for low and moderate income workers. until we do that, i mean, these are nice little interesting conversations to have, but they're not relevant to the retirement security for our community and for all kinds of low and moderate income workers. >> i want to -- cindy, what do you see as a glarier? >> i think a lot of times women save money for their children and don't save money for -- they just believe that's culturally i think we found that with a lot of latino women. if you save for retirement
they'll say i'm saving for my children's education. so to tell them to join the 401(k) plan is like a no-no. >> the data? >> if i don't have data i'm data oriented. >> it's because we've been doing that level of education for maybe twenty years or something. >> oh. >> that's what happens. or they adopt have access at all. >> okay. is there a question over there? >> 100% agree in a lot of cases. even having the toobility open it up to the broader -- , i mean, especially access to a well-designed plan. i mean, the data in the research as well as other research by really prominent researchers in the field show when you do an automatic enrolement process the racial disparity disappear. so, you know, common aside and about dpoat aside. if you look at the data and do a
well-designed plan you'll creases -- address the issue. >> right. that's the case. >> right. yeah. it's a structure change. >> okay. >> questions. mostly for i'm curious about your other thought on the panel. do you feel for many of the folks you work for their employers would be more likely to respond only just enhance incentive like refundable tax credit that would pay the administrative cost of operating a plan. is if your sense that you really need some sort of mandate that employers offer these plans to employees in order make sure that that access there? >> well, we're going -- we'll goat solutions. so, well, if you look in california, they did pass a bill. they haven't been implemented yet. they are going through the federal regulatory process. the california secure choice retirement plan. that's a mandate on all employers with more than five
employees they offer a way for their employees to save from their paychecks. it does not require them to do a match. it would be pooled money the money would be pooled and professionally invested. it's an automatic deduction. things that are not onerous they are important part of the solution, and i believe something should be done that is mandatory because this voluntary system we have has resulted in the situation where, you know, millions of smaller employers volunteered not to provide a retirement plan. and the workers left out are a lot of times low-income and, you know, people of color and women and so forth. and we all need a better retirement security, and, you know, the solutions, i think, are more universal than what we have now.
>> i would encourage you to ask the question again in the next panel and maybe the panel after that. [laughter] >> i will. [laughter] >> a initiative called -- aarp, which works a lot with enrollment auto escalation issues. to the point of giving people more access, do you see any resistance on the part of the small employers to the concept that my employer -- my employees don't make enough money to justify a 401(k) or in particular, automatically enrolling them at the level of savings that really makes a difference in their lives. i think what we're finding -- excuse me, in our research the employees themselves like this idea of automatic enrollment. they don't have a pushback to it. but maybe sometimes employerses may use that as an opportunity,
perhaps, to cop out or not be part of the program. >> so, i asked a similar question earlier on. i think it's an important question, and so i would like you to respond again. that is an argument we hear from employers and others that low-income earners just don't have the ability to save or the desire to save. and sometimes could be used an excuse for not offering a plan. >> yeah, i mean, our recent survey that we did showed that 73% of the people earned $25,000 a year were saving their money. not necessarily for retirement. they are doing some form of saving. so people definitely understand the importance of saving. but just, i mean, it's human behavior. if you take the money away and put it somewhere and threat grow and name hard for people to access it. it's going to be there for them later. i think those are just general things about all humans. yeah. i don't know what else. >> anybody else want to
respond? >> i mean, everything i've ever heard that if people don't have access to it. if they think it's gone away. there is no point. they have so little -- this is true of a lot of women, and, you know, studies have born this in the past that you're locking your money away. if you will a roth, and you knew you could get to your money, people are much more likely to do that. it's just so much harder to be setting up the nontraditional accounts is what they think of them. >> right. right. it sounds like there's a trade-off that yord for people to perhaps encourage people to say they need to know if they need to in an emergency they can get the money. >> right. they need more togs do that as well. >> you can employers whether or not implementing automatic features and it wasn't small business. but at love cases because of cost. if you eliminate the match and give automatic features, they said, okay, they're concerned
about pushback from participates they're going to be upset by it. but with the study, we actually asked people would you be upset if your client automatically enrolled you. 20% were like, i'm not going to like it. and i probably would opt out. the other majority said no, i kind of like that. it would be a nice thing. they are recommending something to me. i think they -- things that employees aren't going like it. they will like it if it it's not a cost issue, payroll deduction are the easiest way to save. it's easier than cutting the check and walking to the bank. it's a nice feature for everyone if you can give people access to it. >> right. >> we have a couple of other questions. >> does any research show an interaction between health care costs and the willingness to enroll in retirement savings
plans? i'm asking this in part because if obamacare turns out to be fairly successful, there should be a subset, at least, of the population that will find their costs for health insurance will fall significantly, and that might open up an income opportunity for people to save more. >> anybody want to handle that? >> i haven't seen that data directly, but rockefeller foundation used to do american workers' survey. it showed for hispanic, the main reason they dpipped in to the savings, the number one reason was to pay medical bills and hispanics are the most likely people to not have any form of health insurance currently. even if we have immigration reform, they're cutting out all the new people who will gain their legal status. they will not have access to affordable care act subsidizes for at least ten years. some of them want to extend
that. so that situation of insecurity due to health care costs is a big issue. and it effects retirement savings ability. let me -- we touched a little bit in term of -- we are hitting hard, i think, on automation and auto enrollment and access. let me more generally, are there things that we know from the resource in term of what works or more importantly what doesn't work in term of getting african-americans, his hispanics, women to save for retirement. >> data is clear with the automatic enrollment feature. those were spelled out in the most recent study. not so much the first study, but the second study. yeah, i mean, you move from, i think, it was 59% of hispanics when it's in the mixed pool some with auto enrollment.
some without. 59%. that was only without. when you don't have auto enrollment. only 59% of his hispanics participated. when you had auto enrollment 80% . to permit employees to save their money. >> i think there's a lot of segmentation when people get e-mail and have access to something they think is important, everything i've seen that companies are doing and financial companies especially that focus on women will get people really excited, because they don't take time to do this on their own. and so it's like if they're being forced to go a lunchtime, you know, event and people are talking to them one on one in a way they can understand. they'll make all sorts of
changes. there's good evidence. >> there's good evidence like communication and the access to -- the communication is key. the other piece i would add is health products are good to help people. once you get in, how do i invest? for targeting funds or managed account are another good tool to guide people. >> would you agree it's -- [inaudible] it happens at work place. >> yeah. within the program. >> hi, i have a question about what you think offering the match, not necessarily by the employer but perhaps through making the savers credit refundable. putting money on the table. since the low-income workers don't gate lot in the tax benefits that are much more of an incent i have to higher income people if they knew they would gate refundable tax
credit. what effect would that have both on the participation rate and on their ability to accumulate a more significant amount of money that might encourage them to keep on contributing and have -- getting somewhere. >> there's one in the law right now but it's not refundable. it's targeted toward low and moderate inners. what do you think of the idea of making it refundable to make it more effective. >> that's the model that i mentioned earlier with the in-home child care workers. that's what we're doing to see whether or not it works. we're doing the refundable double the credit they normally would be getting just to -- rather than a 1% or 3% match. i think that's why they are showing up every week. [laughter] >> so are you seeing -- are you seeing some results now? >> yep. >> okay. >> but, you know, these are
people that have never had any retirement savings ever. and so, you know, they want to do this. that's -- we know. the farmworkers want to do it. everybody want it. >> is it such that this is the focus is retirement savings or is it just savings more general? >> no, it's retirement savings. it's bonds, basically. >> okay. >> if we he a retirement bond that would make for another opportunity for people. >> thoughts? >> we are definitely supportive of that. i would got tax reform debate that, you know, we included that in the priorities we care about that, you know, currently the tax incentive in our for retirement are completely skewed to the top one fifth of workers. and it's so unfair we're going to spend $2 trillion on the tax incentive over the next ten years. can we do something to, you know, make these kinds of
incentives refundable, and available so that low and moderate income people can benefit from some of that $2 trillion it would be great. >> so let me -- this was alluded to earlier from a question i think bob was talking. and it has to do with part-time workers, and contingent workers. i think we're seeing something like 30 million part-time workers today, and we know that part-time workers are less likely to have access to a plan at work. and we know that women and african-americans and hispanics are probably more likely to be part-time workers than whites. so my question, if you have any thought how do we bring the folks in to the retirement system, how to we build assets
retirement savings for these folks? is there any thought out there that in term of how to bring the folks to the system? >> i think give them access to it. if we don't have access, like, if you are part-time. a lot of people won't have access to the employer plans. they don't have the ability to do it. >> right. >> yeah. i think we have been talking about that for, you know, many years because women are much more likely to work part-time. if they had access it would change things. >> right. >> that means if we had a universal retirement system where everybody, you know, was all employers were required to make sure their employees were enrolled in, you know, this new more assessable system all workers will be eligible for it. it would have to be portable and so on and so forth. as people change between jobs they would continue to have
their pot of retirement money. >> okay. another question. >> [inaudible] consumer financial protection bureau. we are seeing a higher percent of minorities and low-income population younger women carrying debt to retirement and i was wondering how that interacts with those sessions -- [inaudible] social security but also the -- decision to draw in to some of this key asset for retirement. >> there's more of that. i don't know pay people more so they can afford to pay their bills.
>> right. >> i'm not the debt expert. but i have other colleagues who are. but they work a lot with the organization, so i can't really speak very much about it. >> i think there's agreement that growing debt is a problem. and i think there's, of course, building assets off. increasing your debt is not necessarily the best thing to do as well. so, i mean, i think there's a balance there. maybe there's an order in term of getting your debt down. and then building yours a sets and retirement savings. >> anything else? >> when you look at the elderly, a lot of the debt they're accumulating is because of health care, you know, medications things like that they do go to the pharmacy and charge. they have done good work on that too. >> any other questions? let me come back for a second. with respect what you are doing
in west virginia, so there the focus is largely on credit savers credit. are there other -- [inaudible] but are there other experiments that you know of or innovative approaches that are occurring in order to increase savings. i know, we said so far that number one is access. number two is the design of the plan itself enrollment. i mention tax incentive and education. is there -- that's a pretty big bucket. we are catching a lot of stuff. are there other things that people are experimenting with? >> the id8 people do a lot of that. the retirement isn't allowed under the, you know, -- >> it is? >> individual development account. and so, you know, people try to do that, they sort of simulate and do ira that are supposed to be geared toward retirement, but
-- and they focus on certain age groups. those have been successful too. i'll provide you with dat. >> right. okay. >> and let me -- i think someone had a question -- more along the small account argument if you have low-income folks and not contributing very much. so you small asset in the aciewnt. my understanding is there is a -- asset building. and the importance of having savings on what that means for people and people in term of their flexibility confidence and economic mobility. you guys have anything on that that you looked at? no. okay. all right. are there any other questions before we move on? we are ahead of schedule. no? [inaudible] >> the industrial issues that
need to be addressed. have you thought about for those who are low-income and don't have the access ability to invest, and have the debt that perhaps might be a better idea for them to put money to a savings account through the money is guaranteed through payroll deduction. once they get to a certain status and the debt -- start investing in the mutual funds. i think we hear save for retirement, we make that to be synonymous with investing. when we are saving it goes to an account where the money can't be -- when we are investing there's no guarantee on the funds. ic that's one of the reasons why i travel the country as i talk to people, the reason they don't invest is fear of the market. market may not be where they need it. but if they put money first in to savings account, the money is accumulating. it's not going to be lost. not through payroll deduction.
they start graduating from that point forward in to an investment account. the problem is the gate keepers. they are the payroll department. they didn't want to open payroll account to allow people to have any other time of retirement vehicle other than a 401(k). from a structure point twhab might be something that needs to be addressed. maybe you can address that. >> well, i mean, that's what i was saying i think the roth is sort of a better solution for at love people. it does allow you to save. you're not supposed to do that of course with the retirement account. that's the only way people actually do save. if they are at the job and they don't have that to what you're saying. so that's part of the problem. so either have to have two or three new account for people to be able to put money in to. we haven't been able to get one. i don't know how we are going to get two other --
yeah. but, i mean, that is, you know, there's at love -- lot of things people need help with. and -- >> the roth ira is a retirement account you put in after tax dollars. >> yeah. and i'll tell you there's a group here that we worked with for a long time called some if you are a d.c. person you probably know them. and they do that. they actually have a retirement account a 401(k). it's amazing because they have a lot of -- they have a lot of employers because they run a lot of homeless shelters and things like that. if you don't want money taken out for 4091k. you can go to the payroll hr people and tell them i can't do that. i'm fixing my car. i can't take money out of my pay. they also allow them to have a savings account that is separate. but, you know, that's because that's what they're in the
business of doing and, you know, this is, like, a bigger issue for the rest of the world here. >> so -- your question is the market something that really discourages women, african-american, hispanic, you take that first step in saving in a 401, k. it seems like you have options for fairly safe investments. so -- >> i have, like, i remember the data that they had on the percent of the assets in equity. for hispanic it was about the same as it was for everybody else. especially with the more target funds. it's just, you know, those decisions are being made, you know, by the mutual funds now. so i have -- you know, i haven't seen data on that. so i don't know that's an issue. yeah. i was going say. i saw something a couple of days ago a study thatcom out showing that actually women were saving
more once they got in to, you know, the 401(k). they'll put in more money than the men. so that was that study a few days ago. it will be something else in a week. [laughter] >> we see it more at higher income levels. but lower and lower it's interesting. equity exposure flattened out. it's the same against all race and ethnicity. >> our was the same. it wasn't far off from the norm before anyway before the spread of fund. >> those people like me they put it in and don't look tat. i think the first step is getting it in there, and hopefully ignoring it enough not tinkering too much. so one followup on this question is it seemed like the idea of having, you know, a starter savings account.
something for safe and transitioning once it perhaps hit a certain level. a certain level in to something more. what do you guys think that have if do you think it would encourage more savings? >> the beginning it's not targeted for retirement. >> it would be principle protected. because the idea embracing and up front. and perhaps. s once it reaches a certain threshold, i'll throw out a number $3,000. whatever the case may be. is perhaps gets rolled over to something that has a mix between equities and bonds. i look for a reaction. is it something that could make a difference in term of increased for retirement savings if there's a strong fear of market? >> i know that in the california secure choice plan they guarantee you won't less your equity. they guarantee a small rate of return. it's kind of more of a bond type
of thing. they found that to be something that helped them get the bill passed, you know. most californians don't know about it yet, but he thought it was an important feature, the sponsor of the bill. >> the important feature of the hispanic they would see that having that guarantee, which would make it more likely for them to participate? >> yeah. possibly -- i think possibly, yeah. i haven't seen data on it. it kinds of stands to reason that people would prefer something they're not going to lose their principle on. >> okay. we have a question. >> i'm hearing lot of good ideas for ways to have employers set up plans that require employers to do this and do that. given that 50% or more of the businesses in this country are owner-operated small businesses, what kind of incentives are all
of your plans putting in place to encourage those employers to do this? i really would love to hear from each of the three panelists about what you think should be done to encourage small businesses to do these things. have the owner take it out of their pocket. >> if they want to respond, let them respond. the next two panels, i think, there specifically to those issue. [inaudible] >> i'll say something. i rub a non-profit, so, you know, i get exactly where you're coming from. [laughter] i think there need to be incentives. that's why nothing happens. i see paula here. i was telling somebody yesterday that she and i did this at the press club about 22 years ago when was at the pension right center. we did an event how are we going to get women covered in small business. here we are twenty years later. it needs to be done something
different, you know, than what happened in the last two decades. [laughter] >> i would say some of the innovative ideas that coming out and bubbling up more at the state level are not putting requirements that the employer contribute any -- let me talk. the california secure choice plan does not require the employer to do any match. in fact, it prohibits employers from giving a match because they wanted to not be subject to the laws. so the employers are prohibited from giving a match in the california secure choice plan. fyi, look it up. they are asking the payroll deduction to offer it. it if you have a pdp or whatever to let the employee deduct part of their own earnings. their own earnings and money. what you pay them. and let them save that money. so i would say people bending over backwards to try to make this easy. new idea